Ex Parte Chow et al - Page 4



                 Appeal No. 2006-0486                                                                                  Page 4                      
                 Application No. 10/300,916                                                                                                        
                         proof that casings reduce noise when placed in fronts                                                                     
                         [sic] of noise producing parts, Thorpe . . . teaches a                                                                    
                         cover or noise reduction apparatus 1 attached to the                                                                      
                         landing gear to reduce noise is well known in the art                                                                     
                         (see column 1, first four paragraphs).                                                                                    
                                  It would have been obvious to one skilled in the                                                                 
                         art at the time the invention was made to have used a                                                                     
                         noise reduction apparatus in a spaced relationship on                                                                     
                         the landing gear in Derrien et al.’s [i.e. Derrien                                                                        
                         ‘030] system as taught by Williams and further                                                                            
                         supported by Thorpe . . . to reduce noise.  Please note                                                                   
                         that during the design stage, it is [sic, would have                                                                      
                         been] obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the                                                                   
                         invention was made to have made the noise reduction                                                                       
                         apparatus accommodate the landing gear when the landing                                                                   
                         is in the stowage position so that it can be used                                                                         
                         repeatedly.                                                                                                               
                         This rejection is deficient in a number of respects.                                                                      
                         First, the disclosure of Derrien ‘030 contains nothing which                                                              
                 indicates that the landing gear thereof includes any noise                                                                        
                 inducing components for which a noise reducing apparatus would be                                                                 
                 desirable.  Second, contrary to the examiner’s above “findings,”                                                                  
                 Williams contains no express teaching that stream-lined housing 9                                                                 
                 (which the examiner refers to as a cover) constitutes a “noise                                                                    
                 reduction apparatus” (id.).   The rejection still would be1                                                                                   

                         1This erroneous finding has been made with respect to a                                                                   
                 number of references. As correctly pointed out by the appellants,                                                                 
                 only Thorpe contains any express teaching of a landing gear                                                                       
                 attachment which reduces noise. The appellants also have                                                                          
                 correctly explained that the examiner has misconstrued the                                                                        
                 Blackburn reference as being non-specific with respect to whether                                                                 
                 its landing gear is fixed or retractable whereas, in fact, the                                                                    
                 landing gear is expressly disclosed as being fixed.                                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007